Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

"WP:FTN" redirects here. For nominations of featured topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates.

Welcome to the fringe theories noticeboard
This page is for discussing possible fringe theories. Post here to seek advice on whether a particular topic is fringe or mainstream, or whether undue weight is being given to fringe theories. Discussions related to fringe theories may also be posted here, with an emphasis on material that can be useful for creating new articles or improving existing articles that relate to fringe theories. The purpose of this board is not to remove any mention of fringe theories, but rather to ensure that neutrality and accuracy are maintained. Familiarize yourself with the fringe theories guideline before reporting issues here. To aid in promoting constructive dialogue with advocates of a fringe theory, {{talk fringe|fringe theory name}} may be added to the top of the corresponding talk page. Sections older than 20 days archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:ftn-notice}} to do so.
Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: If your question regards whether material constitutes original research or original synthesis, please use the no original research noticeboard instead. Discussion of fringe theories will depend entirely on their notability and reliable coverage in popular media. Above all, fringe theories should never be presented as fact. Volunteers: To mark a discussion resolved, place {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Article alerts

Articles for deletion

• 13 Feb 2019 – List of unaccredited institutions of higher education (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Lurking shadow (t · c); see discussion (8 participants)
• 01 Feb 2019 – 9/11 Citizens Watch (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by PlotHelpful (t · c); see discussion (9 participants; relisted)

Categories for discussion

• 16 Feb 2019 – Category:Historiography of the Republic of Macedonia (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by BrownHairedGirl (t · c); see discussion
• 12 Feb 2019 – Category:Medieval Iraqi astrologers (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion
• 05 Feb 2019 – Category:MMR vaccine controversy (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by JzG (t · c); see discussion
• 10 Jan 2019 – Category:Abbasid humanists (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Fayenatic london (t · c); see discussion
• 10 Dec 2018 – Category:Hypnosis in fiction (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Doniago (t · c); see discussion

Requests for comments

• 20 Jan 2019 – MMR vaccine and autism (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by JzG (t · c); see discussion

The answer to all your Electronic harassment needs!

• Scalar Field interferes with attack signals!
• Solfeggio Waves Soothe & Heal harmed cells!
• Nullifies Psychic Attacks an Dream Intrusion!
• Fights Negative Influences and Mindstalking!
• Confuses signals used in Mind Control & V2K!
• Can block Remote Viewing and Manipulation!

[ https://quwave.com/defender.html ]

I, of course, prefer the product described at [ http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ ] and believe the the TRUTH found at [ http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]...   :)   --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• DYK: Solfeggio comes from the musical pedagogy of Guido d'Arezzo, who came up with a mechanism for teaching music based on initially hand positions, with the name of each note in the scale based on the first syllable of the stanzas of a hymnus in Ioannem (hymn to St. John) known as ut queant laxis (which all experienced choristers knew by heart, as part of the Gregorian chant):

Ut queant laxis
resonare fibris
Mira gestorum
famuli tuorum,
Solve polluti
labii reatum,
Sancte Iohannes.

The first syllable morphed to "so" rather than "ut", hence solfeggio. Guido was able to demonstrate a choir singing a piece of music they had never seen before, at the Vatican. This was, to put it mildly, a revolution in music. When combined with neumes you had starting note and trajectory, and this became the genesis of Western musical notation. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

JzG, I did not know that, and did not expect to learn about it on a fringe theory noticeboard in a thread about electronic harassment tinfoil hats. Fascinating! Bradv🍁 18:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I learned it from a very interesting programme by Howard Goodall. Given my interest in early music, it stuck with me :-) Guy (Help!) 18:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

We even have an article on it: Solfège. Seems to be the origin of the "do re mi" scale that vocalists use. But I'd like to know what "Solfeggio Waves" and "Solfeggio Energy" are, in that advertisement above. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I knew Julie Andrews was a fringe topic! JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Watch this video [1] and WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Arezzo was a hotbed of UFO activity (Aliens Reside Zzo = the sound of a raygun) and Guido composed a chant that could be muttered continuously to jam the mind control frequencies. His musical notation was originally used as a way to share the technique with others without raising suspicion. –dlthewave ☎ 20:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

From the archives: Solfeggio_frequencies. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. It has been nearly six years. Do we now have enough sources to create Solfeggio frequencies (pseudoscience)? The fact that it is utter bollocks shouldn't be an obstacle; we have articles on Torsion fields and Electrogravitics. Or maybe a section in the Solfège article with a redirect? See [2], [3], [4], and [5]. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

When one eliminates the skeptics sites (which really don't cut it as authorities on their own) I see pretty much the same situation as before: the usual "collect ALL the fringes" references all mention this, and nobody else cares. Let it stay deleted. Mangoe (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Editor adding unsourced to Kemetism

Heru-Maaket Neb-ShakaRa (talk · contribs) is adding unsourced material to Kemetism and to Ausar Auset Society. I gave him/her a welcome message explaining that they'd been reverted for adding unsourced but they've continued. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

From Shroud of Turin to Intelligent Design

Pernimius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), having been topic banned from the Shroud of Turin (and posting lies about what a topic ban includes on his talk page[6][7][8]) has decided to "fix" our "biased" coverage of intelligent design.[9][10] The topic has changed, but the behavior has not. Do we need to go back and ask that the topic ban be extended to all of pseudoscience? More eyes are needed on this situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Take it to ANI.>Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I am wondering if there is enough recent disruptive activity for an ANI case. I am inclined to wait a week or two to see if he keeps it up. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably. Textbook case of the same old "arguments" from people who have no interest in reality but fight constantly to push their view. --mfb (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

ANI is fine, but WP:AE is likely more efficient. jps (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

He claims he's retired, "especially because of harassment and misrepresentation by Guy Macon". Doug Weller talk 17:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

If he stays retired, this would be a Good Thing. We really don't need creationist editors who insist that https://evolutionnews.org/ is a reliable source.[11] --Guy Macon (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Shreds the Truth --evolutionnews.org

Happy Darwin Day! Our 2018 Censor of the Year Is Wikipedia --evolutionnews.org

The Intelligent Design Underground --evolutionnews.org

--Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

G. Edward Griffin

Talk:G. Edward Griffin - it seems that "someone besides me" needs to tell the IP what's what. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Springer publishing fringe nonsense

See [12] - a book on the geology of the Atlantic that starts with exploration by the Celts, Chinese, you name it. Doug Weller talk 17:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Was someone trying to cite it... or did you simply want us to enjoy a good chuckle? Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Just the chuckle or perhaps a whimper of despair. Doug Weller talk 11:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, if I recall correctly, the fringe theories that the book posits were actually taken somewhat more seriously in the early 80's, when this book was being written. I recall being fascinated by one of my elementary school history textbooks that said that it was a possibility that North Africans had visited the Americas prior to Columbus, but being unable to find any pop-history works addressing the subject. I think the book is entertaining "fringe theories" in the sense of "theories supported by a minority of qualified experts" rather than the usual "batshit insane bullshit", once you take the publication date into account. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding for clarity: If that book had been published after the mid 1990's or so, I would likely assign it to the "batshit insane bullshit" category. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(+1) to above. ∯WBG^converse 17:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Disappearance of Frederick Valentich

Disappearance of Frederick Valentich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the spirit of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, I don't think long transcripts belong in the article. Several versions exist on the web, obviously edited to heighten the mystery, and the version being used is a possible WP:COPYVIO. Also this seems to contradict a cited source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

is it an edited transcript?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

A previous version pasted in was. The current version pasted in are from images of Australian DOT (?) documents hosted on hecklerspray.com. WP copyright policy exempts material originated by the US government, but that exemption does not extend to those produced by other governments, especially those covered under Crown Copyright such as in this case, Australia - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyright aside then this is OR. Removing a full version and replacing with an edited version to give a specific impression (and NPOV).Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention the edit warring IP is at 3RR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

BS Ayurvedic drug

Comments/criticism about the quality of the article BGR-34 are welcome over the article-talk-page as are bold improvements:-) Also, do you see any conflict with MEDRS? ∯WBG^converse 17:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRODIGY

Wikipedia:Prodigy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've moved this proposal from a userspace of a retired user to WP-space as I think it is worth having discussed in more detail. jps (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

This explains EVERYTHING

This pretty much explains everything we see on Wikipedia: [13] I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not something new, is it? I mean, it's been known for a long time that people struggle with that notion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Gua sha

• Gua sha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Another TCM horror. Recent IP activity, so could use more eyes. Alexbrn (talk)

Head transplants

• Sergio Canavero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of issues here. First, the article has been recently edited by an account names "Sergiocanavero" (as reported at WP:COIN#Sergio Canavero); secondly that we seem to lack neutral good sources for reporting on his "work", which is currently sourced to some dodgy journals. Alexbrn (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, the journal is borderline-dodgy coming from a quasi-famed publisher who was once in Beall's list. There is a plethora of negative reception, across RSes, by the way:-) ∯WBG^converse 17:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

There's that journal yes. Also Medical Hypotheses ... Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Viktoras Kulvinskas

New Age raw food crank who believes cancer can be cured by eating a raw food diet. Virtually no reliable stuff out there on this guy. Article was using fraudulent references (that do not mention Kulvinskas) that I removed. Can someone submit for deletion? What a terrible article. 2605:3E80:700:10:0:0:0:BE7 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the dearth of citations I have boldly redirected to Hippocrates Health Institute, of which Kulvinskas was a founder. Any material on him would be better dealt with there per WP:NOPAGE - I can't see a case for a standalone article on this person. Alexbrn (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion about AAH paper

Aquatic ape hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We're having a somewhat productive working session about adding some content on work done on the vernix caseosa into this article. However, on the discussion page I came across a peculiar issue where a paper in Scientific Reports written by AAH proponents seems to have a statement that fails verification! But we're not necessarily supposed to fact check papers like this, so it up against WP:V in a sense. In any case, I started a discussion about this issue here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Errors/mistakes_in_reliable_sources and thought I would cross-post here since it potentially involves fringe theories.

jps (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Scientific Reports is fast getting a reputation as the go-to journal for publishing bollocks (often this goes hand-in-hand with a claim that it is in Nature). WP:REDFLAG. Alexbrn (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Unfortunately, it is also the largest journal running now and often authors are directed to it when their submission to Nature is denied (thus giving the publishing group more $$$). Beall warned us about this, but no one listened. I don't know how to handle Scientific Reports. It's clearly better than some other open-access journals, but it seems to often disappoint me when it comes to editorial control. Of course, Nature itself disappoints me on occasion. jps (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course, Nature itself disappoints me on occasion. Heresy! I'll see to it that your shilling payments from big pharma, NASA and the GMO lobby are cancelled for this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Nature is really, really not without its flaws. jps (talk) 16:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That's the last straw! Now I'm reporting you to Them. The all-seeing eye is upon you, traitor! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Cathleen Ann O'Brien

This page has been moved from Cathleen Ann O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) I think, but I can't tell as there is no history. The page has been moved, but as I am incompetent I cannot recover things. Could somebody competent take a look? Thanks. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

As long as there aren't other Cathleen Ann O'Briens (or O'Brians) out there, this move is okay. The parentheticals we use are almost always to differentiate a subject with a common name from other articles. When we do insist upon labeling something (or someone, muah hah hah) a CT in the title and there's no ambiguity to the name, we usually omit any parentheses, e.g. Pizzagate conspiracy theory and Black Knight satellite conspiracy theory.— Preceding unsigned comment added by an idiot named thunder britches (talk • contribs) 16:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The diff history may be unclear, but this is what was removed during the article move, and this was the mover's rationale. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, that doesn't make the move itself wrong, just the motivations for doing so. And the edit that Doug reverted was wrong, also. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Refocused discussion to article's Talk page where it belongs. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Louie; The text you claimed was removed during the move was not actually removed. See [14], where the text is clearly visible at the end of the lede. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

True, I must have got Doug Weller's January revert mixed up with his February revert. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I've just spent five minutes trying to figure out what the dickhead upthread was on about and just getting more and more confused until I had an oh bollocks moment. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Since Cathy O'Brien (conspiracy theorist) still exists but not the Talk page, it looks like the Talk page was moved and the article text copied and pasted into the new name. --Calton | Talk 05:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Rupert Sheldrake

• Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I only glanced at it after removing a recent major expansion of the lede, but it appears there are basic BLP and FRINGE violations. My impression, especially of the Selected Books section, is much of it places popular responses (out of their FRINGE context) over science. --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, this one is an oldie but goldie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

So old in fact, that this, if memory serves, Deepak and NLP were what converted me from a SPA to a cynic. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey Roxy, I think this may have been where we met: Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_8#Sense_of_being_stared_at. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Our Lady of America

I think this can be considered fringe - needs a serous rewrite to meet NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)